ther before the same jury or a new one. The case is not yet decided.

:

Hone was tried thrice on charges of blasphemy, for having parodied the creed of Athanasius, and parts of the liturgy of the church of England he also conducted his own defence on all these three trials. The main ground of his defence was, that the crime for which he was brought to trial was a political one, not a crime against religion: and that if his parodies had not been against the prince regent and his ministers, but against their political opponents, he would not have been brought to trial for them. He also endeavoured to prove that parodies of the liturgy, and even of the scriptures, might be written, and had actually been written, by men who had not the most remote idea of bringing religion into contempt. In his speeches he entered into a long historical detail of religious parodies, in order to prove these two points; and we must confess he did prove them: but, as was observed, repeatedly, by the judge, on the trials, proof that blasphemous parodies had been suffered to pass unnoticed and unpunished, even though it had been also proved, or at least rendered probable, that they escaped because their politics were ministerial,—did not justify Mr. Hone, or afford a legal ground for his acquittal. His other plea was more to the purpose: his object was to show, that a writer of parodies of the description of those for which he was tried, might be actuated by motives very opposite to those imputed to him; and that unless it could be shown that his intention was to bring religion into contempt, the charge of blasphemy must fall to the ground, and he must be acquitted. In his detail, he certainly proved that men had

written religious parodies, whom nobody could suspect of feeling the slightest wish to injure religion; and he thus proved that the mere act of writing religious parodies could not be blasphemy,-that the intention and object must constitute the crime. But though he thus made it clear that very staunch and sincere friends of the church of England had parodied parts of her service, it is impossible not to perceive that this conduct, though it may proceed from no bad intentions, must be productive of the most serious consequences to the cause of religion; and we are rather disposed to be of opinion, that in this case, as well as several others, the law ought to prevent that carelessness and inattention to consequences from which public evil flows; in the same manner as, in many cases, an injury done to an individual is punished, although the proof that there was no evil intention is most distinct and unimpeachable.

There were several circumstances attending these trials of Hone, which deserve notice and remark, as illustrative either of the British manners and character, or of some parts of the British jurisprudence, which in our opinion require seformation.

In the first place, the firm, undaunted, but by no means forward or impudent behaviour of Hone during his trials is worthy of notice. The judges frequently en-. deavoured to interrupt him, as going into matter not relevant to his defence; but he carried his point, and was always at last permitted to state and urge what he intended, Certainly no counsel could have gone so completely in teh teeth of the judge as he did; and as certainly in no country, at least in Europe, could such a scene have been witnessed. An obscure man, U 3

of

of no literary acquirements, quite unaccustomed to speak in public, conducting his own defence, before the judges of the land, against the attorney-general and other counsel of experience and high talents; and this defence against an accusation which the judge was evidently dis. posed to regard as well founded: moreover, Hone's object was not to prove that he had not sold these parodies; but that these parodies, which had all the outward signs of being blasphemous parodies on the church of England service, were in reality not such.

The second circumstance which we wish to notice respects the approbation which the people in court expressed when the verdicts of Not Guilty were given in by the jury. This we think not only indecorous, but a practice which, if suffered to go on, must strike at the root of fair and impartial trial: the jury, having the feelings and wishes of men, cannot prevent the approbation or disapprobation that may be expressed in court, from acting on their minds: on this account all symptoms of either ought to be most rigorously suppressed. And certainly those are no real friends to the great object of British veneration, the great bulwark of British liberty, the trial by jury, who permit themselves to break in upon the decorum and solemnity of the proceedings of a court of justice.

The next circumstance to which we alluded, regards the duties of a judgeonatrial. The practice of some judges is merely, before the jury deliberate on the case, to sum up the evidence, and lay down the law: the practice of other judges is not only to do these things, but also to give their own opinion respecting the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or, in fact, to advise and in

struct the jury what verdict to pronounce. The latter mode we cannot help regarding as contrary to the spirit of the British constitution, as well as beyond the duty of a judge, and infringing on the peculiar province and privilege of a jury. In fact, if the jury are in the smallest degree influenced by the opinion of the judge, in the verdict they pronounce, that verdict is not their verdict; it is not a verdict according to their oath: and though they sit there as jurymen, and the prisoner may be said to have had the benefit of a trial by jury, he has in fact had his guilt or innocence declared by the judge. In cases where the crown is a party more particularly, that is in all cases of sedition, libel, high treason, &c. the judge ought most carefully to abstain from going beyond his proper province of merely stating the law and summing up the evidence. Even during the first part of the trial, it will be very difficult for a judge totally to free himself from all prejudice against the prisoner; but on such an opportunity of letting his own opinion be known, as must be given if he does not strictly confine himself to lay down the law, and sum up the evidence, it will not be possible for him not to discover a leaning for or against the prisoner. In our opinion, therefore, the province of the jury ought not to be invaded by the judge: the law meant, and the spirit of the British constitution requires, that the guilt or innocence of every man who is accused of a crime, should be determined by his peers; by men who, when they know the law of the case, and hear all the evidence for and against the prisoner, will be fully equal to decide upon that guilt or innocence: and we therefore think, that for a judge to do more than

merely

merely qualify a jury to give a verdict, by telling them clearly what is the law, and by giving a short and perspicuous summary of the evidence, is for him to render the trial by jury, a nominal, rather than a real blessing.

The practice is for the judge to lay down the law, after all the evi. dence is gone through;-would it not be better if he were to lay down the law at the very beginning of the trial? If this were done, the jury would know the value of the evidence, as well as of the speeches of the counsel on both sides, much better than they do at present. The jury ought to know from the very beginning of the trial, the exact crime

for which the prisoner is about to be tried, and to be informed most accurately of the meaning and purport of the law which applied to his case. Thus being acquainted with the law, and having it constantly in their recollection during the whole of the trial, they would be better enabled to ascertain the full bearing and weight of the evidence upon the case before them.

The trial by jury is such an invaluable blessing, that every circumstance, which in the slightest degree defeats its object, ought to be immediately, utterly, and for ever removed; and every mode of rendering it more effectual ought to be adopted.

WE

E are well aware that we are about to enter on delicate ground, in this chapter; but it is the duty of an historian and annalist to give a full and impartial picture of the age of which he treats: and if he represents things as they are, he ought neither to be praised for giving a pleasing picture, nor be censured if his picture should happen to be displeasing. Our object is, not merely to relate events, which usually are supposed to fill up entirely the province of an historian or annalist; but also to give a sketch of the state of the people of Britain,-as that state is exhibited in the means which they possess of existence, comfort, and wealth, and in their feelings to

wards the constitution under which they live, and towards those by whom that constitution is administered. In our preceding chapters, by pointing out the state of agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and finance; the state of political parties both in and out of parliament, and the feelings of the people towards the government, as they were displayed either by the loyalty of the great mass, or by the disaffection of a few, we have left for our consideration, only the topics which are placed at the head of the present chapter.

It would be interesting and instructive to contrast the feelings, impressions and ideas entertained respecting the nature, character, and U 4 privileges

The queen has never been a popular character. As the wife of the sovereign, and participating with him in a mode of life much more domestic than sovereigns generally pursue, she undoubtedly has always been regarded with respect. But from the period of her marriage till the present time, she does not seem to have taken sufficient pains to identify herself with the British nation; and in more than one instance she is supposed to have interfered too directly in politics. The discountenance which she shows for female profligacy, is one feature in her character on which even those who otherwise deny her praise, bestow the tribute of their respect.

The prince regent has at times been rather popular; at times the people have manifested much indifference about him; and at times he has been unpopular. When he first entered on public life, the circumstances of his joining the party in opposition to his father's ministers, rendered him a favourite with all who adhered to that party; but of course not acceptable to those who supported the measures of government. His youth too, and the openness of his manners bent the public feeling strongly in his favour; and as it was confidently expected, on his father's illness, that he would act on those principles, and adopt those plans of reform and retrenchment, which during his whole previous life he had both avowedly and virtually recommended and supported; this expectation being disappointed had a tendency to injure his popularity; for though with many he was praised for having shaken off nis old friends, and sacrificed what might be supposed his private or unadvised sentiments, for those

which the safety of the nation, in their opinion, required he should adopt; yet an immediate and striking change of conduct in public men, is always viewed by the gene. rality of the nation with distrust and dislike.

But there was another circumstance that rendered him more generally unpopular than this change in his political principles and conduct: we allude to his difference with the princess of Wales. The people of this country, and probably of all countries, though of this in a more particular manner, are disposed to view with sympathy the sufferings, real or represented, of a stranger and a female. Hence the princess of Wales had the prejudices, or rather the natural feelings of the nation on her side, in her difference with the prince her husband; and as her character was impugned, the nation were disposed to scrutinize more closely and rigorously the private character of him who brought, or countenanced, the charges against her. Party, also, lent its aid to misrepresent and exaggerate the difference between them, or rather the real state, ground, and evidence of this difference. Hence, while the prince came out of the investigation with diminished popularity, the princess emerged from it, the favourite of the people. At present, we believe, public opinion is more in unison with the dictates of cool and impartial judgement, and looks more closely into the facts of the case, than it did, when the question between the prince and princess was first agitated. The princess, unfortunately and unadvisedly for her own popularity, was persuaded to go abroad, forgetting that absence weakens all kinds of feeling, whether hostile or favour

able,